Comments on FTPBP #2 - 2017
Jurisdiction Position Comments

ALABAMA
Support

ALBERTA
Support

BRITISH COLUMBIA
Support

IDAHO
Undecided

ILLINOIS
Undecided I was leaning towards supporting this ballot, but now as I think about this more, I'm wondering if the decal's "status" would then become necessary if serialized decals are to become tracked. For example, if a company is revoked, his license and decals are no longer valid: he must reinstate his account and get a new license and decals. Under his original (now revoked) license, he ordered 80 decals. Under his reinstated license he only ordered 20 decals to save money.  60 trucks in his fleet still run the "revoked" decals, while 20 run with the newly assigned decals -- they all look the same after all.  OR-- he orders 80 new decals with his reinstatement (like he did on his original), but doesn't see the need to remove the revoked decals off of 80 trucks only to replace them with the "new" decals having different serial numbers -- they look the same, and it's November after all.  Either way, with this ballot the Clearinghouse will show ALL of the decals issued to the carrier for the year whether they are currently valid or not.  Do we really even care that some of the decals are technically no longer good??  They were all issued to that company, after all. 
Leasing companies are another story -- some notify us when a driver has been terminated.  They no longer want their decal associated with that driver's truck.  Should that particular decal serial number now have a status of "invalid" so it can be accurately be reflected in the Clearinghouse?  Again do we really care?
If we do care, that's more programming costs that could make this ballot less palatable to those jurisdictions already citing programming costs as a concern.

KANSAS
Support

MANITOBA
Support

MARYLAND
Support

MISSISSIPPI
Support

MONTANA
Support see prior comment.

NEW HAMPSHIRE
Support

NORTH CAROLINA
Undecided See previous comments. 

NOVA SCOTIA
Support Will require system change by our 3rd party service provider.

ONTARIO
Support

QUEBEC
Oppose Quebec has to take in consideration the cost, operational and systematic, associated to this change.

RHODE ISLAND
Support  IFTA.inc put the money and time a couple of years ago to add this to the clearinghouse. It make sense for an enforement reasons for the date to be sumbitted. If this ballot does not pass, then I think it would make sense to maybe looking at removing this option from the clearinghouse to save money for IFTA,Inc if no one is going to use it.

SOUTH CAROLINA
Support

SOUTH DAKOTA
Undecided

UTAH
Oppose We feel it's not worth the effort to have our system changed, and decals serialized, if decals are going to be obsolete in the next few years.
Support: 13
Oppose: 2
Undecided: 4
View Ballot Comments